Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).
Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.
For our Singapore office, for client enquiries please contact our BD Director, Asia Pacific, Lara Quie and for all other queries please contact Lynn Quek. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.
28 Maxwell Road
#02-03 Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120
singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230
Contact with chambers should be made through the Practice Management Team. They are happy to discuss client requirements and provide further information on such matters as the expertise and experience of individual members, fees, working practices and languages spoken. We have members able to work in French, German, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, Swedish, Greek and Chinese (Mandarin).
Outside working hours, a member of our team is always available to be contacted on matters of an urgent nature. Contact should be made using the Chambers main number or email.
For our Singapore office, for client enquiries please contact our BD Director, Asia Pacific, Lara Quie and for all other queries please contact Lynn Quek. Out of office hours calls will automatically be diverted to our clerking team in London.
28 Maxwell Road
#02-03 Maxwell Chambers Suites
Singapore 069120
singapore@twentyessex.com
t: +65 62257230
Saulawa & Another v Abeyratne & Another [2018] EWHC 2463 (Ch)
The court considered the requirements under CPR 38.7 for granting permission to bring a fresh claim arising out of the same facts as a claim which had been discontinued. On the facts of this case, the fresh claim was a re-run of a claim that had been settled by a settlement agreement and consent order some three years previously. The court considered that there should be a natural reluctance to allow re-litigation of a settled dispute. To do so would undermine certainty and finality and could allow for oppression of an innocent party. The court reviewed factors to be considered in a CPR 38.7 application and also confirmed that permission should be sought prospectively under CPR 38.7, not retrospectively. In this case, the court found that seeking to bring the fresh claim in the same terms as the original claim amounted to an abuse of process and ordered indemnity costs against the applicant party.
Angharad Parry (instructed by Balfour and Manson LLP) acted the defendants.
Angharad Parry has written an article regarding the case which has been published on LexisNexis. Please see the PDF below for the full text.